If one writes Pi or Catalan, the output is Pi or Catalan, and writing evalf(Pi) or evalf(Catalan) we get approximations.

I would like to define other constants behaving in the same way. How to do it?

Hi,

I want the T2 code to run like T1, but it doesn't, what's the reason?

T1.mw

T2.mw

How to export Maplet file to .exe file to run independently without installing Maple software?

I can't figure how to simplify

 V:= V1*R2/(C*R1*R2+R1_R2)

into

V = V1 *R2/(R1+R2)/(C*R1*R2*s/(R1+R2)+1)

with Maple

Basically, divide numerator and denominator by the s^0 coefficient.

Hi,

`[Length of output exceeds limit of 1000000]`

Hello, I want to get the the homogeneous balance principle for the Differential-Difference Equation with Maple. Can anyone help?

the homogeneous balance principle:The balance is made between sentences with the highest degree of nonlinearity and the highest order of the available derivative. We consider the power of terms like u^p as pM and u(q) as M + q and put them equal (pM=M+q) and get the value of M. Now, if M = 1/n (where m is an integer), then we use the transformation U= W^n, where W is a new function.

example:

I have a equation

((D@@2)(theta))(eta) = -(1/2)*(D(theta))(eta)*(-2*(D(phi))(eta)*beta*epsilon*lambda*D[B]+2*(D(phi))(eta)*beta*epsilon*mu*D[B]+f(eta)*sin(alpha)*beta*nu+2*(D(theta))(eta)*gamma*epsilon*D[t]-2*(D(theta))(eta)*beta*epsilon*D[t]+cos(alpha)*beta*eta*nu)/(beta*sigma)

and a parameters expression

Pr:=nu/sigma; N[b] := epsilon*D[B](mu-lambda)/sigma; N[t] := epsilon*D[t](gamma-beta)/(gamma*sigma); Le := nu/D[B]

How can I seperate common terms and substitute this parameters and got this following expression

((D@@2)(theta))(eta) = -(1/2)*Pr*(D(theta))(eta)*eta*cos(alpha)-(1/2)*Pr*(D(theta))(eta)*sin(alpha)*f(eta)-N[b]*(D(theta))(eta)*(D(phi))(eta)-N[t]*(D(theta))(eta)

When using solve or other commands to find solutions to a problem that has more than one solution, they are returned as a list. I have observed that ordering within the list is not consistent from one run to another, and I am starting to suspect, as I try to juggle a complex cubic depending on a parameter, that the labelling can change within a single run. This is inconvenient. Any advice? Am I missing something?

For some of the users with eye problems like me, the white canvas is burning eyes out of sockets as the monitor needs to be close up. Even turning down the intensity do not work especially since all other applications on Linux can be configured to have a dark-theme, but NOT Maple it seems.

What is the reason for this resistance from Maple Developers to just ram this white canvas down our throats verion after version.

Users have been asking since about Maple 11 to change  this.

I mean, Maple is not exactly cheap, which would have been an excuse, and is formidable intellectual software, so "ability" should not be a problem

However am I to believe that just changing the canvas color, turns out to be  a serious intellectual challenge for developers ?

Google yields such custom canvas request spanning more than a decade, but users arrive at crickets and a dead end.

Please be kind and give us a customizable canvas or any DARK theme of your choice for users with visual challenges and the lots of normal users who also want a custom canvas color or dark theme. It is overdue.

At the moment I use the cumbersome table-solution with a gray background, which helps some, but it is clunky and no alternative for long term use as the window and bars itself are still white and distracts and defeats the objective somewhat.

`c₁₁`, `c₁₂`, `c₁₃`, `e₃₁`, `c₆₆`, `c₄₄`, `e₁₅`, rho, `ϵ₁₁`, `ϵ₃₃` = constants;
`U₁` := unapply(`U₁`(t, x, y, z), x, y, z, t);
`U₂` := unapply(`U₂`(t, x, y, z), x, y, x, t);
`U₃` := unapply(`U₃`(t, x, y, z), x, y, z, t);
phi := unapply(phi(t, x, y, z), x, y, z, t);

PDE1 := `c₁₁`*Diff(`U₁`, y, y) + `c₁₂`*Diff(`U₂`, x, y) + `c₁₃`*Diff(`U₃`, x, z) + `e₃₁`*Diff(phi, x, z) + `c₆₆`*Diff(`U₂`, x, y) + `c₆₆`*Diff(`U₁`, y, y) + `c₄₄`*Diff(`U₃`, x, z) + `c₄₄`*Diff(`U₁`, z, z) + `e₁₅`*Diff(phi, x, y) = rho*Diff(`U₁`, t, t);

PDE2 := `c₆₆`*Diff(`U₂`, x, y) + `c₆₆`*Diff(`U₁`, y, x) + `c₁₂`*Diff(`U₁`, x, y) + `c₁₁`*Diff(`U₂`, y, y) + `c₁₃`*Diff(`U₃`, y, z) + `e₃₁`*Diff(phi, z, y) + `c₄₄`*Diff(`U₃`, y, z) + `c₄₄`*Diff(`U₂`, y, z) + `e₁₅`*Diff(phi, y, z) = rho*Diff(`U₂`, t, t);

PDE3 := `c₄₄`*Diff(`U₃`, x, x) + `c₄₄`*Diff(`U₁`, z, x) + `e₁₅`*Diff(phi, y, x) + `c₄₄`*Diff(`U₃`, y, y) + `c₄₄`*Diff(`U₂`, z, y) + `e₁₅`*Diff(phi, y, y) + `c₁₃`*Diff(`U₁`, x, z) + `c₁₃`*Diff(`U₂`, y, z) + `c₃₃`*Diff(`U₃`, z, z) + `e₃₃`*Diff(phi, z, z) = rho*Diff(`U₃`, t, t);

PDE4 := `e₁₅`*Diff(`U₃`, x, x) + `e₁₅`*Diff(`U₁`, y, x) - `ϵ₁₁`*Diff(phi, x, x) + `e₁₅`*Diff(`U₃`, yx y) + `e₁₅`*Diff(`U₂`, z, y) - `ϵ₁₁`*Diff(phi, y, y) + `e₃₁`*Diff(`U₁`, y, z) + `e₃₁`*Diff(`U₂`, y, z) + `e₃₃`*Diff(`U₃`, x, z) - `ϵ₃₃`*Diff(phi, z, z) = 0;

pds := [PDE1, PDE2, PDE3, PDE4];
sol := pdsolve(pds);

i was solving the above set of pde. but it was showing the following errors,

Error, (in U₁) too many levels of recursion
Error, (in unapply) variables must be unique and of type name
Error, (in U₃) too many levels of recursion
Error, (in phi) too many levels of recursion
Error, (in pdsolve/sys/info) required an indication of the solving variables for the given system

can anyone help me?

This could be simple but I didn't solve it.

How can I dipsplay the output of ifactor(n) in an embedded component.

for example:

ifactor(2600);
                            3    2     
                         (2)  (5)  (13)

I mean the output with the exponents.

Whats better, label or text area ?

a simple example will be very helpfull :)

Why doesn't calling Describe with a sequence input work?

S:= 1,2,3; Describe(S);

Error, (in Describe) invalid input: describe expects its 3rd argument, indent, to be of type string, but received 3
 

I need a function  that computes the rank of a polynomial matrix over complex numbers. For example, for polys := [[x^2, 0, 0], [x^2, y^2, 0], [x^5, 0, 0]] I want to get an answer Rank(Matrix(polys))=3 and for polys := [[x^2, 0, 0], [0, y^2, 0], [x^2, y^2, 0]] I want to get 2. However, usual Rank from Linear algebra package gives wrong answers.
Does such a function exist in Maple?

 I defined the following function L1 and L2 to test, if  Maple is returning the same results. Mathematically they are identical. For all testpoints, L1 returns the correct results (for y := -5 the result is -15).  L2  returns identical results exept for y:=-5. For y:= -5, where you can see on the first glance that the result must be -15,  Maple is returning for L2 a complex number. I am worried about this different treatment of the functions L1 and L2, because I am calculating with functions, where you cannot prove the result as easy as it can be done here. 

L1 := y -> 3*y*((y + 4)^2)^(1/3);
   L1 := proc (y) options operator, arrow, function_assign; 

      3*y*((y+4)^2)^(1/3) end proc

L2 := y -> 3*y*(y + 4)^(2/3);
   L2 := proc (y) options operator, arrow, function_assign; 

      3*y*(y+4)^(2/3) end proc
NULL;
for y from -5 to 0 do
    print("y = ", y, "L1(y)   =  ", L1(1.0*y), "          L2(y)  =,  ", L2(1.0*y));
end do;
  "y =  ", -5, "L1(y)   =  ", -15.0, "          L2(y)  =,  ",     7.500000000 - 12.99038105 I
 "y =  ", -4, "L1(y)   =  ", -0., "          L2(y)  =,  ", -0.
"y =  ", -3, "L1(y)   =  ", -9.0, "          L2(y)  =,  ", -9.0
           "y =  ", -2, "L1(y)   =  ", -9.524406312,              "          L2(y)  =,  ", -9.524406312
           "y =  ", -1, "L1(y)   =  ", -6.240251469,              "          L2(y)  =,  ", -6.240251469
   "y =  ", 0, "L1(y)   =  ", 0., "          L2(y)  =,  ", 0.

In help(EllipticF): Why is the parameter k not called “the modulus of the elliptic function” as in the definition of the inverse Jacobi functions in help(InverseJacobiPQ)?

Instead, it is called “the parameter” which can be confused with the parameter m=k^2 used in other notations (which is refered to "a parameter m" in the EllipticF help page).

Is there a reason for this, or should the parameter definitions of the first, second and thrid elliptic integrals not be aligned with the parameter definitions of the Jacobi functions and their inverses?

DLMF for example defines k as modulus for both, the Elliptic Integrals and the Jacobian Elliptic Functions.

A user who wants to transfer an expression from a different notation to Maple might misinterpret parameters.